Appeal No. 97-0767
Application No. 08/383,996
As to claim 8 the appellant also argues that Fox does not
teach that his shell is formed of polycarbonate material.
However, page 8 of the appellant’s specification merely states
that the shell may be formed of a synthetic plastic material
“such as polycarbonate or PET that is impermeable to air”
(emphasis ours), leading us to conclude that the selection of the
particular plastic material is an obvious matter engineering
design choice. After all, artisans must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references disclose
(see In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA
1962)) and the conclusion of obviousness may be made from "common
knowledge and common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in
the art (see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549
(CCPA 1969)).
As to claim 9 the appellant argues that Fox does not teach a
handle section that “is hollow and molded of high-strength
synthetic plastic” (brief, page 4). We observe, however, that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007